Perhaps they'll listen now

Political Compass Test: How Do I See Wider Society?

Continuing the political compass test, we come to my opinions on wider society. Feel free to complete the test alongside me and be sure to enter your results into the comments below.

Let’s get into it.

I’m not the kind of person who believes freedom and security are mutually exclusive. Most Western countries are examples of environments where people are able to live freely but safely. Any nation would collapse if only able to provide one of these two things to its citizens. However, if given the choice, I will always take priority of freedom over security. Counter-terrorism is important (obviously), but its power and authority should not overtake civil liberties.

I disagree; I disagree on pretty much every level. The ‘arguments that delay progress’ is one of the biggest advantages of a democratic political system. Arguments occur when something needs to be argued. Democracy is a conduit for debate, and debate leads to improvement—the refinement of ideas. That just doesn’t happen in a one-party state. Oppression is what happens instead, as seen in North Korea, the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, and Communist China. Try arguing in those places.

This is a dangerous idea to follow, and one I’d hope everyone disagrees with. It’s like a man holding a gun to your head, promising he won’t shoot so long as you don’t do ‘wrong.’ Apart from that, you should never want to give anybody that much power over your life. What if corruption takes place? What if they abuse their power? What if the line between freedom and disobedience blurs?

I’ve already stated that I don’t believe an-eye-for-an-eye is productive as a social value but that it does have its uses, particularly as a means for nuclear deterrence. In that case, the threat of destruction is raised, but peace is ultimately the reality. So what about when it comes to punishment? In theory, I should be all for it. The consequence is not further escalation but the complete dispatching of a dangerous person. This is where my paranoia and pessimism starts to show. Wrongful imprisonment happens—innocent people punished for a crime they did not commit. Now imagine that the false punishment wasn’t just taking a few years of someone’s life, but their entire life. The state-sanctioned killing of one innocent is not worth the capital punishment of one hundred bad guys.

It is not civilised society that brings us hierarchies but human nature itself. We as individuals will never be equal in ability or skill. Not all of us have the potential to become leaders, to dominate and command the people around us. A leaderless society is impossible unless we remove man’s capacity for individualism and exterminate any member of our species who dare display the qualities of an alpha.

You shouldn’t stand above an artist and tell them their art isn’t what they call it. Art is incredibly subjective—it’s supposed to be. Creativity is the expression of emotion, and we don’t all connect to the same feelings. You can certainly critique art, but don’t try to reclassify it as something else. Being unable to understand a song does not make it any less of a song, for example.

Retribution and rehabilitation are both important but only one is guaranteed to work. In prison, rehabilitation is a possibility, while punishment is assured. Before we can even think about fixing anyone, we must establish that they are in prison as a punishment for disobeying the laws of society.

Some people just don’t belong in society. Like incurable illnesses, some sick human beings are doomed to be sick forever, and we shouldn’t waste our time on them.

A world without manufacturing is naked, and a world without artists is brainless. The businessperson is not more important than the writer, but that doesn’t mean the writer is more important than the businessperson. Both are necessary if you want to maintain a strong society of free individuals.

Why is it the mother’s duty to be a homemaker? Mothers and fathers are equally capable of maintaining a house, and they are equally capable of holding down a steady job. We should not force traditional gender roles onto people who don’t want to follow them. Let individual families be free to make their own decisions so long as the children remain unharmed.

I think most people have come to this statement on the test and been confused. I’m not especially knowledgeable on the topic, but as of now, I’m pretty sure that unethical exploitation is not taking place.

It’s actually quite the opposite. Making peace with the establishment, as in to never question it again, shows obedience—not maturity. It is childish to believe that becoming compliant is a show of wisdom.